John Yoswick is a freelance automotive writer based in Portland, Oregon, who has been writing about the collision industry since 1988. He is the editor of the weekly CRASH Network (for a free 4-week trial subscription, visit www.CrashNetwork.com).
He can be contacted at email@example.com
This month we begin a new type of column that takes a look back at this month in collision history 20, 15, 10 and 5 years ago. You may be surprised how many issues we think of as recent concerns were in the news back then. Keep in mind that these stories may have turned out differently than the way they were reported at the time. Where they did, we attempt to clarify the later outcome.
It was announced at the latest Collision Industry Conference (CIC) meeting in Phoenix that CIC’s multi-year discussion of “industry standards” may be coming to a close later this year.
The most recent discussion of industry “standards” at the Collision Industry Conference (CIC) centered around the differences between “repair standards” and “business standards,” and whether either one—or both—are needed, and whether some organization is needed to implement them.
A key element of some direct repair program (DRP) contracts is indirectly coming under increasing scrutiny by federal regulators—leading some to predict insurer pricing demands on shops soon may be forced to change.
Include Mike Monaghan as among the proponents of the benefits of collision repair industry standards. What effect did he see such standards having in the United Kingdom?
It’s easy as a shop owner to get so caught up in day-to-day operations that it can be a challenge to follow the news directly affecting collision repairers.
One by one this past spring, a panel of repairers at the Collision Industry Conference (CIC) voiced their concerns about the privacy of their shop’s estimating and other data, and expressed a desire to “opt out” of having that data compiled and reported on by the Big Three information providers.
Non-OEM versions of many more vehicle parts could be manufactured and available much sooner after a new vehicle model is introduced if backers of proposed changes to federal patent laws are successful.
State Farm’s PartsTrader program, the use of shops’ estimating and other data, and how one state regulator oversees auto insurers, were among the topics at a recent board meeting of the Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS).
Should repairers be held solely responsible if a repair process or part they choose fails—even if that process or part was chosen at the behest of an insurer?
As the discussion of how and whether the industry should develop some sort of formalized collision repair standards continues, Paul Gange brings a somewhat unique perspective on the topic.
A report at the Collision Industry Conference (CIC) on the findings of a study into what consensus exists within the industry about the development and implementation of formalized repair standards led to as much discussion about the value and validity of the study as it did to discussion of standards themselves.